Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Medicare for All’ would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study [View all]ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts)63. Us Canuks figured that out decades ago
.
.
.
Can't lose your home or savings here for stuff like heart attacks and cancer, and most procedures don't cost a dime - funded mostly by income tax contributions during our lifetimes.
Homeless and people on social assistance get the same benefits whether or not they ever contributed a dime.
And the poor get an added bonus, necessary prescribed medication is paid for.
But the Administration in the USA is loathe to admit someone like Canada has a better idea - the Admin will spend millions, er WASTE millions, Billions skirting around a system that works pretty good -
remember - ya got big pharma down there - they put a lot of $$ into your government's elected officials pockets . . .
don wanna screw that up now do we??
CC
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
66 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Medicare for All’ would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study [View all]
eridani
Aug 2013
OP
The article mentions similar studies dating back to the early 90s. Same results.
Blaukraut
Aug 2013
#1
Medicare for All’ would cover everyone, cost insurance companies billions in first year: new study
Wilms
Aug 2013
#6
R#40 & K for, who's got the history about who was LBJ's healthcare guru for MediCARE?
UTUSN
Aug 2013
#9
K&R Another stone to place on top the mountain we've built over decades. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Aug 2013
#10
It seems like it would be good for 2014 campaign optics, if nothing else.
Gidney N Cloyd
Aug 2013
#14
Yes. Expanding and improving coverage for all Americans outweighs any bad negotiating.
LonePirate
Aug 2013
#26
Your unintended consequences stance is merely an argument against Medicare for All.
LonePirate
Aug 2013
#33
I fully understand the term. I am simply rejecting any worst case scenarios based on them.
LonePirate
Aug 2013
#36
You asked if people wanted the government to negotiate drug prices. Let's follow that.
LonePirate
Aug 2013
#41
You're the one not connecting with anything. You tossed out a hypothetical and refused to support it
LonePirate
Aug 2013
#47
Family in Europe, friends in Canada wait periods are less than mine in USA is with private ins.
uppityperson
Aug 2013
#43
Yeah, the funding changes would be challenging as no R would agree to any of them.
LonePirate
Aug 2013
#51